Why Peace Is So Tricky for Humans

Below:

Next story in Science

Like our close living relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, humans
are hardwired come into conflict with one another, often
violently. Even so, like our ancestors, we also have the capacity
to resolve fights; something that one anthropologist says has
evolved along with our societies over the millennia.

We still have a way to go, he points out. The current system we
have in place for dealing with large-scale conflict — the United
Nations — is inadequate, suggests researcher Christopher Boehm
who has contributed one of several essays on human conflict
published in the May 18 issue of the journal Science.

"The genes are still making us do the same old things, which
include quite a bit of conflict. Culture has given us solutions
at various levels," said Boehm, of the department of biological
sciences and anthropology at the University of Southern
California, in a podcast released by the journal Science. "But
the world conflict-resolution system still needs quite a bit of
work." [ The
Evolution of Fighting ]

While for the most part, national governments are fairly good at
coping
with internal conflicts, the UN's ability to intervene in
conflicts is severely hampered, because, for example, permanent
members of its Security Council are able to veto a resolution, he
said.

Deep roots

The role of third parties like the UN in resolving conflicts
appears to have deep evolutionary roots. The common ancestor for
humans, chimpanzees and
bonobos appears to have lived in a social dominance
hierarchy, a structure that leads to conflict between individuals
and groups, Boehm concluded by looking at behaviors shared among
the three species today. (Bonobos appear less conflict-prone than
chimpanzees and human hunter-gatherers.)

Often, fighting bonobos or chimpanzees will resolve the conflict
themselves, but when this doesn't happen, a third party sometimes
steps up.

While humans at this time retained the capacity for violent
conflict shared by their ancestors, the dynamics had changed.
Humans had an understanding of death and they had weapons. They
temporarily lost the alpha-male role and became more egalitarian,
living in small bands; they also became moral, following rules
because group values support them, rather than simply out of a
fear of power, Boehm writes.

Hunter-gatherers have
high rates of homicide, comparable to those of a large modern
city, he said. Their egalitarian social structure, however, means
there is no strong figure to intervene in fights, so people often
try to head off a fight before it starts, he said.

Evolving solutions

But the loose social structure also offers a solution; those
involved in conflicts can join a new band far away. This changed
in time.

"Our cultural evolution has involved living in much more large
and dense populations, and with larger populations come a greater
need for command and control at the political center," he said.

Because moving away is no longer an option for them, tribal
farmers grant some authority to a chief, allowing him to stop
conflicts. Over time, this trend toward centralized power
continued, chiefdoms turned into kingdoms, which led to early
states and eventually modern nations.

Conflict management could then be delegated to police, courts and
political figures, and in some cases, armies could intervene.

As for conflict between groups (rather than within them), humans,
like chimpanzees, and bonobos to a lesser degree, fight with
their neighbors. In the modern world, nations devote considerable
resources to preparing for war, and small wars are waged
frequently. However,
like hunter-gatherers, nations can use truces and treaties to
resolve them, Boehm writes.

"In the foreseeable future, the human capacity for political
problem-solving will continue to be tested, with an ancient
capacity for conflict management providing an important tool in
international politics," he writes.